[Sean Flynt]

Legal isn't the same thing as ethical. It might be legal to rip off the R&D of a modern manufacturer, but it's not ethical. It might be ethical to reproduce a famous sword from some museum, but in the museum's country it might not be legal. At the very least, we should all strive to be ethical.

[David Lohnes]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

After reading only a part of the legislation, I doubt that it will be possible here to have an end result.
The Italian legislation has been in large part, reversed.
A European law requires all states to comply with the laws of a committee specially set up.
Laws repealed are many, of course, since, Italy is the cradle of the law, we had more laws are more than a man can read his whole life
I also doubt that museum directors can have a thorough knowledge of current legislation.
Worthy of note seems to be that this legislation does not deal in goods subject to copyright, but to the cultural heritage older than 70 years after the death of the author.
There seems to be a great availability to the individual and scientific studies. Some restrictions, if the reproductions are a commercial nature.
Worthy of note: a work of art contains in itself the rights that go beyond the author himself.
The emphasis is more on the historical and cultural value that encloses the artwork, above the interests of those who built the artwork.
Also of note: the restoration requires very specialized and technical staff, it must be protected, it becomes a whole that is in the artwork itself.
To have an idea, even if written in Italian, there are six long pages of laws and restrictions ... The first starts from the link that indicates the end, but there are 6 in the bottom of the page.
See why I'm wrong profession? Being a lawyer makes more and more? Only joking, no offense to the category.
http://www.dirittodellearti.it/normativa.html

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Sean Flynt]

I don't know how those firms operate, but I'd say it is unethical to start with the end product, reverse the research process, and make an exact copy for mass production. I'd be uneasy doing that even to make a on-off for myself (even if I had the skill). I don't see anybody doing that. More often, I see firms making things that only superficially resemble higher quality pieces.

Now, if an emerging firm looks at what the best manufacturers are doing--where they get their ideas and research, what technology they use, how they organize their business and build their brand, etc.--and simply use that as information and inspiration, I think many would argue that it's the way a free market should work, creating competition, raising the quality bar for everyone, promoting diffusion of technology/ideas and probably bringing down costs across the board (although getting the details right is always going to command a premium).

All of us, to one degree or another, have gained from what the top craftsmen have done in recent years. I think they've been incredibly generous with their information in this forum alone. That's reason enough to leave their designs alone, but there are so many other good legal, ethical, historical, martial and aesthetic reasons to do something original. Having said that, if there's published/public research on a given historical sword, then I think it's an open field as long as everybody working on that design is working from the published information rather than the interpretations of other modern craftsmen. For example: As strongly as the Svante is identified with Albion, there is at least one other interpretation of that sword. I don't know the inspiration for the other sword (Del Tin) but Peter Johnsson and Albion have published the antique's vital statistics. I think it's ethical and legal to interpret the original sword using that information. The result is almost certain to be dramatically inferior to Albion's interpretation because the latter is informed by hands-on experience, but the price would probably reflect that and satisfy some niche in the market.

I would guess that we're going to see more historical design in the middle of the sword market--$200-500 (Windlass/Hanwei)--with fine finishing details, professional assembly and complex blade geometry still commanding the ground $500+. I would expect buyers at that level of investment to be much more concerned those things, and I'm not sure mass production can please them.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

If a producer buys a sword Albion, copy everything right will have a sword by the same characteristics. This is unethical, immoral, and violates the rules of free competition. Behind the construction of a sword Peter has spent hours and hours of work, but show the copy is difficult enough just to change something. is against all ethics. But this happens only for swords? No, whatever happens has a commercial value.
The market has kind eyes, but has no heart.
At least, here, let us consider these things.

[David Lohnes]

I am a huge fine of high quality modern swordsmiths, Peter and Albion in particular.
I value what they do, respect their work and rights, and am grateful for the fact that their commitment to excellence and personal and corporate openness and generosity have helped me.

Having said that, I see little moral or ethical dilemma in a smith reverse engineering Peter's work and recreating it on his own. In doing so, he's doing the same kind of hands-on reverse engineering that Peter has been doing on original swords. Peter's not a pretend swordsmith. He's a real one, and his swords are every bit as real as museum pieces--because he's spent years reverse engineering original swords. Studying his swords for guidance is like studying the originals, from both a practical and a moral point of view.

I doubt Peter would have an issue with someone buying a sword from him, studying it, and then making one of his own. Such a smith is going about the process in the right way; he paid Peter for his work and then put his own time and effort into educating himself in the craft. Obviously such an approach has limits. A smith could buy one of every Museum Line and Next Gen sword, study it, and copy it and still not have Peter's depth of knowledge and experience. But he'd be moving in the right direction.

But really, real artisans don't operate that way. They don't slavishly imitate. They look for inspiration. A smith who is so committed to growth in his craft that he'd invest the time to study each of Peter's swords in detail and then recreate it would not be satisfied to simply recreate Peter. He'd want to do his own thing.

Artisans are not the problem.

The problem are companies with deep pockets, overseas labor, big machinery, and little personal ivestment in the craft as a whole. Do the big firms really care whether or not their product is historically accurate because they care about history? Or are they simply trying to roll up the market?

The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Big companies won't roll up the market unless we allow them to do so by buying their products. You can't state that it would be OK for an individual to do it and bar them from doing it on the grounds that they are big companies. But of course we are free to buy only from companies that employ people whose experience we trust, whose understanding we respect.

I've heard the same kind of argument thrown against Albion, that they are the big guys rolling up the market because they have marketing power and big machinery and so on. There are people that regret that individual smiths don't get some of the demand they could because people buy Albions and are content with them. I'm not one of them.

I too am immensely grateful to Peter and Albion for their openness and their commitment to the making of excellent products, as I am to other craftsmen (Craig Johnson, Angus Trim, Michael Pierce, among others) without whom I wouldn't have the same understanding of the functioning of swords as I have now. If someone else, big company or not, takes inspiration in their products to further their own understanding and therefore produce better swords, I won't blame them. I don't think blatant copy of one particular model would work anyway (too easy to strive for what can be directly measured but get the hidden variables wrong, and once you understand the hidden variables you don't need to risk bad PR by doing a direct copy).

Regards,

[Chad Arnow]

[Sander Marechal]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Bryce Felperin]

[Steven Reich]

There are actually two different (but similar) things here: Copyright and Patent.

In the case of media, Copyright will usually be the relevant consideration, but in the case of engineering, it will be patent. Where we see patents is in cases of reverse engineering--if you reverse engineer a patented process and then reproduce it, you have violated a patent. In the case of objects, such as swords, you will probably fall under patent law. OTOH, reproductions (i.e. media) of art works, photographs, etc., usually involves copyright law.

In the US (and maybe other places), no one owns a copyright on old works, but they can own copyrights on photographs of old works (i.e. digital images), those works are in public domain. Thus, I can publish a transcription of Marozzo as I please. However, if I grab the images of Marozzo that a library has put online, things are a little more hazy, since we get into questions of digital media rights an such.

Note, I am not a lawyer, my writings mean nothing. Plus, Italy is on a different planet than the US, so who knows what goes on there

Steve

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

There is no legal concept of unique works of art, because art is by definition undefinable.
There is measured with "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies" in which the very notion of art work and, consequently, its legal character, are of soft edges, as we had occasion to note in 1928, during the famous case brought by Romanian sculptor against the United States of America. The case ended triumphantly for the sculptor.

For Italy the political-economic world is realizing that "the historical and artistic heritage is the largest domestic oil field in the country", that is a powerful instrument of prosperity, and is preparing to manage the change of perspective in relation to a past in which heritage and cultural activities were considered non-productive of material wealth.
Museums, art galleries, libraries, even the superintendents and historic centers, must be transformed into genuine public-private companies and artists themselves are driven to by managers themselves, in an atmosphere in a market of almost.
Regardless of prognosis on future performance of such a change, it is certain that it is leading a parallel effort, imposing regulatory tool to support the material and cultural activities with an adequate economic policy and govern while more rigorous and far-sightedness, the exercise of rights and the fulfillment of obligations by the parties concerned.

In the U.S.A, advocacy not only boasts a distinguished history of philanthropy but there is a special type of law firms specializing in property law and cultural activities. Special type of law firms specializing in property law, perhaps the laws are not as simple as you think.
Not by chance, were lawyers / art critics, creators and benefactors of the great American museums in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, see: Metropolitan Museum of Art (John Jay) (Joseph H. Croatian) were lawyers. I do not think other countries' laws are easier. Of course, Italian are always first class, in terms of laws, (it's ironic) but ..all right as long as only one picture or 10 swords, if you move powerful economic interests, then jump out the laws that we think do not exist.
for one, like me, knows little English, I write too much.

[Sander Marechal]

[C Bosh]

I think it is fair to say that ethical or not, copying does, will, and will continue to happen, by large manufacturing companies with cheap labour. They will continue to use other people's designs, which are themselves modelled on historical pieces, as a shortcut in their manufacturing process ,therefore keeping costs down in research.
There is little or nothing in the original artist can do as these companies are often in countries with limited legal procedures on copyright. there maybe laws there but trying to get them enforced when you are a small individual from outside the country is difficult.
These mass-produced pieces to offer sword users/collectors a cheap alternative to the more traditionally made sword, which has been carefully researched and designed, but is very expensive.
To be honest there is very few of us out there who have not bought swords in this class at some point over the years. Whether we know it or not, the design was probably borrowed from some other source.
I think the only thing we can do is try to offer support to the more traditional craftsmen still hand producing and carefully researching his work. This may mean forgoing four or five cheap swords, and purchasing one skilfully handcrafted item occasionally.
Whatever the law says, in whatever country you are, large companies have an eye on profit, and will take whatever shortcut necessary to secure cheap and easy designs. FACT !
It is down to us as individuals, to keep the small craftsmen alive by private commissions, saving up so we can afford them.
Sorry if this has gone slightly off topic, but we cannot bemoan the loss of craftsmen if we do not support them.

[Werner Stiegler]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

To be honest, the photos are out of the ordinary. Seems to have the sword on the table. The size, known to all, coincide with the tenth of a millimeter with a graphics program. We also see the cross on fuller, the scrape of cleaning, incredible.
Maybe they used special equipment and a professional photographer.
This in all honesty.

[Sander Marechal]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]